In short, yes, if you are an individual that has been harmed from toxic exposure from drain cleaners as a result of the actions or inaction of another party, then you have the legal right to sue the party responsible for your injuries. As far as how an individual can bring a toxic exposure lawsuit, they are typically brought as a personal injury claim.
Although the exact definition for what is considered to be a toxic substance differs by state, in general, a toxic substance is something which is considered to be harmful to the human body. As such, toxic exposure typically occurs when the human body comes into contact with a toxic substance. Then, it is common for an injury to result from the plaintiff being exposed to the substance without being aware of it, only to discover later on that they have incurred a serious medical condition.
Drain cleaners are chemical mixtures that contain very dangerous chemicals which can be harmful to a person’s health if they swallow the chemicals, breathe the chemicals in, or if the chemicals come in contact with a person’s skin and eyes. The specific poison chemical present in most drain cleaners is sodium hydroxide.
If an individual suffers an injury as a result of the normal use of the drain cleaning product, to no fault of their own, then they may be able to recover from the parties responsible for their injuries under personal injury law.
Toxic torts is the term that more specifically refers to personal injury cases in which an injured party (i.e. a plaintiff) alleges harm because of exposure to some type of toxin or chemical. In order for a plaintiff to be successful in their toxic exposure claim, they will most often need to prove factors similar to a negligence claim, including:
- The Defendant Owed a Legal Duty Of Care: The duty of care is generally straightforward in toxic torts cases, as any party or company dealing with toxic chemicals owes a general duty of care to people to not contaminate the environment or mishandle dangerous chemicals and injure others;
- The Legal Duty was Breached: Duty of care is largely determined by the reasonable person standard, which considers how a reasonable party would act in the same situation.
- In cases involving toxic substances where an individual was harmed by a toxic substance, a person may prove the duty was breached by arguing and providing evidence that a person in a similar situation would have exercised more care in handling the toxic substance in order to avoid harming others.
- In most cases, the fact that an injury involving a toxic substance that is intended to be handled with care occurred, is enough evidence to show that a breach has occurred;
- The Breach of Duty Caused the Harm: The plaintiff must then prove that the breach of legal duty of care was the direct or proximate cause of the harm; and
- The Plaintiff Actually Suffered a Particular Harm: Finally, the plaintiff must prove that they suffered a particular and quantifiable harm because of the defendant’s actions by providing different types of evidence, such as medical bills, pharmacy bills, or evidence of lost wages.
As can be seen, the main issue in toxic tort cases is to identify the party responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries. In extreme cases where drain cleaner was intentionally forced upon a party, that will be easy to prove, as the plaintiff can identify the responsible defendant(s) and sue them for toxic exposure and likely civil battery. Otherwise identifying the party responsible for a manifestation of a toxic exposure injury may be difficult.
Examples of common toxic exposure defendants involving drain cleaner may include:
- Manufacturers: Manufacturers who actually create the chemical or toxic compound may be held liable for creating and unleashing a toxic substance into the stream of commerce, especially if the product was unreasonably dangerous.
- In general, personal injury claims that seek to hold a manufacturer of drain cleaner responsible will be brought as defective product claims in which the plaintiff will assert the as a result of a manufacturing defect, the product was dangerous, unsafe, or unfit for a consumer’s use because of the way it was constructed or assembled during the manufacturing process;
- Distributors: Distributors may also be held liable for poorly inspecting the goods that they put into the stream of commerce;
- Retailers: Parties who sell directly to consumers may be held liable if they knew of a product recall or knew the product was inherently dangerous, but failed to remove or recall the product themselves; and/or
- Individuals: As mentioned above, if a toxic substance was forced upon someone against their will, that will result in a liability for toxic exposure, and likely result in a civil battery charge and criminal charges.
It is important to note that work-related injuries associated with toxic exposure are not handled through a typical personal injury lawsuit, even if the employer was directly responsible for the toxic exposure which occurred.
Toxic exposure in the workplace is handled through the worker’s compensation system, which all of the fifty states have enacted. A workers compensation claim is generally the only remedy for injuries which happened while on-the-job.
For example, if plumbers or septic tank professionals were harmed from long term exposure to drain cleaners, they may be able to file a workers compensation claim to recover for their injuries.
Finally, if multiple homeowners, plumbers, or septic tank professionals were affected by the drain cleaner being a defective product, then all of the individuals that were injured may seek to form or join a class action lawsuit. A class action lawsuit is a legal claim brought by a group of individuals who have all suffered either the same or a similar injury because of the same defendant’s conduct.
